Casualty Inequity, Politics, and Public Support for Israel

This research examines whether disproportionate civilian casualties in foreign violent conflicts influence public support towards the more forceful actor. The article looks at whether the awareness of a skewed ratio of civilian fatalities in Israel and Palestine alters United States public support for Israel, and if so, whether American political cues provide additional influence to public support.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of the most publicly present and dividing ongoing conflicts of our time. United States foreign policy has traditionally sided with Israel, but the pressures of public opinion and voices from the international community challenge the seemingly unconditional support. The summer of 2014 saw a major surge in violence when Israel conducted an air campaign in Gaza, leading to protests all around the world and divided public opinion in the United States. A major concern from the 2014 Gaza conflict was the issue of severe civilian casualty inequality. Five Israeli civilians compared to over 1,500 Palestinian civilians were killed. This casualty ratio reflects the history of the larger Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Using the 2014 Gaza conflict as a case study, the researchers explored if individuals in the U.S. are inclined to oppose an unequal proportion of civilian casualties in war and reduce support for the more forceful side of the conflict when casualty ratios are skewed. They also consider how partisan (Democratic and Republican) messages about the more forceful side of the conflict affects civilian casualty information and public opinion. These questions lead to the following hypotheses:

Support for the more forceful actor will decrease if civilian casualty inequity information is known.

(a) In-party criticism of the forceful actor will further decrease public support. (b) Out-party criticism of the forceful actor won’t provide any additional change to public support.

The research team conducted a survey of 584 Americans over the age of 18. They provided a summary of the 2014 Gaza conflict including the skewed casualty figures, and targeted political statements from both democrats and republicans condoning Israel’s hardline stance to measure if the survey respondents’ opinion of the conflict was effected by their party’s disapproval of Israel.

The results showed that civilian casualty inequity information is very relevant in shaping U.S. public opinion towards Israel, especial for voters in the Independent political party. Interestingly, Republican and Democrat respondents were not notably influenced by their party’s or their opposing party’s criticism of Israel. This finding shows that even though most U.S. politicians are generally reluctant to voice an opinion regarding Israel, their criticism doesn’t matter as much to public opinion as actual casualty inequity information reported in the media. The authors acknowledge that although this study advances what is known about influences to public opinion, their findings are based on a single experiment with a relatively small sample of U.S. voters. A larger survey of the public is needed to confirm their conclusions on how civilian casualty inequity may impact public opinion.

Casualty Inequity: The uneven distribution of civilian casualties across two sides in a conflict.

Contemporary Relevance:

The Israel-Palestine conflict is one of the most contentious issues in modern global politics. As the single-biggest supporter of military security for Israel, the U.S. is not an impartial party to the conflict. Therefore, understanding U.S. public opinion becomes a significant variable, as policy decisions can be impacted by public expressions of support or rejection of the U.S. role in the conflict. Reducing civilian casualties is not a partisan issue, but one that should be at the forefront of a larger foreign policy agenda. Findings from this research may help the international community apply pressure on the Israeli government to stop military escalations and pursue diplomatic approaches when civilian casualties begin to rise.

Talking Points:

Reporting of disproportionate civilian casualties during the 2014 Gaza conflict lowered U.S. public opinion of Israel.

Criticism of Israel from U.S. political leadership did not provide any additional influence on U.S. public opinion.

Practical Implications:

These results demonstrate the relevance of civilian casualty information in shaping opinion. Although this study is specific to the Israeli-Palestine conflict, it provides an important foundation to public opinion research. Previous research has shown that the more the public knows about alternatives to war, and now about war’s casualties, the less they will support war or warring states.[1] Previously, elected officials may have disregarded the effects of information regarding civilian casualty inequity, which may be due to the lack of media attention that would otherwise make these figures public. If the media includes accurate casualty information, it would be likely to see a decline of popular opinion towards violent conflict.

Popular Posts

01

02

03

Social

Testimonials

Erica Chenoweth, Ph.D.

The field of peace science has long suffered from a needless disconnect between current scholarship and relevant practice. The Peace Science Digest serves as a vital bridge. By regularly communicating cutting-edge peace research to a general audience, this publication promises to advance contemporary practice of peace and nonviolent action. I don’t know of any other outlet that has developed such an efficient forum for distilling the key insights from the latest scholarly innovations for anyone who wants to know more about this crucial subject. I won’t miss an issue.

-Erica Chenoweth: Professor, Associate Dean for Research at the Josef Korbel School of International Studies at the University of Denver

David Cortright, Ph.D.

The Peace Science Digest is a valuable tool for translating scholarly research into practical conclusions in support of evidence-based approaches to preventing armed conflict.

-David Cortright: Director of Policy Studies at the Kroc Institute of International Peace Studies at the University of Notre Dame

Ambassador John W. McDonald, ret.

This Magazine is where the academic field and the practitioners meet. It is the ideal source for the Talkers, the Writers and the Doers who need to inform and educate themselves about the fast growing field of Peace Science for War Prevention Initiatives!

Kelly Cambell

As a longtime peace activist, I’ve grown weary of the mainstream perception that peace is for dreamers. That’s why the Peace Science Digest is such as useful tool; it gives me easy access to the data and the science to make the case for peacebuilding and war prevention as both practical and possible. This is a wonderful new resource for all who seek peaceful solutions in the real world.

Michael Nagler

We must welcome the expansion of peace awareness into any and every area of our lives, in most of which it must supplant the domination of war and violence long established there. The long-overdue and much appreciated Digest is filling an important niche in that peace invasion. No longer will anyone be able to deny that peace is a science that can be studied and practiced.

-Michael Nagler: Founder and President, Metta Center for Nonviolence

Aubrey Fox

The Peace Science Digest is the right approach to an ever-present challenge: how do you get cutting-edge peace research that is often hidden in hard-to-access academic journals into the hands of a broader audience? With its attractive on-line format, easy to digest graphics and useful short summaries, the Peace Science Digest is a critically important tool for anyone who cares about peace as well as a delight to read.

Joseph Bock, Ph.D.

How many times are we asked about the effectiveness of alternatives to violent conflict? Reading Peace Science Digest offers a quick read on some of the best research focused on that important question. It offers talking points and summarizes practical implications. Readers are provided with clear, accessible explanations of theories and key concepts. It is a valuable resource for policy-makers, activists and scholars. It is a major step in filling the gap between research findings and application.

-Joseph Bock: International Conflict Management Program Associate Professor of International Conflict Management, Kennesaw State University

Eric Stoner

The distillation of the latest academic studies offered by the Peace Science Digest is not only an invaluable time-saving resource for scholars and policymakers concerned with preventing the next war, but for journalists and organizers on the front lines, who can put their findings to good use as they struggle to hold the powerful accountable and to build a more just and peaceful world.

-Eric Stoner: Co-founder and Editor, Waging Nonviolence

Mark Freeman

The Peace Science Digest is a major contribution to the peace and security field. It makes complex issues more understandable, enabling professional outfits like ours to be more effective in our global work. The Digest underscores that preventing war is about more than good intentions or power; it is also about transferable knowledge and science.

Maria J. Stephan, Ph.D.

The Digest is smartly organized, engaging, and provides a nice synthesis of key research on conflict, war, and peace with practical and policy relevance. The journal’s emphasis on “contemporary relevance”, “talking points” and “practical implications” is a breath of fresh air for those of us trying to bridge the academic-policy-practitioner divides. Highly recommended reading.

-Maria J. Stephan: Senior Advisor, United States Institute of Peace

David Swanson

Peace Science Digest is an invaluable tool for advocates for peace, as much as for educators. In it one quickly finds the talking points needed to persuade others, and the research to back those points up.